Great news!Jim Andre, the Alberta school trustee newly-elected to the Camrose School Board, has resigned over the publication of his months of racist, sexist, homophobic tweets. Thanks to Kris Wells for weighing in on this and for passing on the success story!

Last week Jim Andre, a recently-elected school board trustee for the school district of Camrose AB, was outed on CTV as the author of a series of about 60 tweets which were explicitly racist, sexist and/or homophobic.There has been a firestorm in the wake of the disclosure.Andre says he won't resign unless the school board votes to ask him. The school board meets this week. The whole story here.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, enacted in 1982, has become a cultural touchstone, guaranteeing that Canada is a place of freedom, respect, and equality.Right?Two events this week underscore the Charter's weaknesses. The first is an . underreported court case in Ontario, Tanudjaja v Canada. In that case, a coalition including B.C.'s Pivot Legal Services argued that the Charter imposed an obligation on the federal and provincial government to ensure that affordable, adquate and accessible housing is available for all Ontarians and Canadians. The coalition argued that section 7 of the Charter, a guarantee of of "life, liberty, or security of the person" imposed that obligation. The case was thrown out as soon as it was filed, before any evidence was heard. The court said that the Charter imposes no positive obligation on governments to do anything. If the government gets into the affordable housing business, it must do so in compliance with the Charter which among other things guarantees equality. But the government has no obligation to get into the affordable housing business if it doesn't want to. So your 'right' as a Canadian to "life...and security of the person" doesn't include the right to eat, or be sheltered.

The second event - this one all over the news - is Quebec's intention to introduce a "Charter of Values" which would prohibit the wearing of some religious symbols (all except Catholic crucifixes, in fact) if you work in the public sector - government, hospitals, educational institutions.

This law does contradicts the guarantee of 'freedom of religion' and the guarantee of 'freedom of expression' in both the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Quebec's own Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Courts have consistently upheld the rights of religious minorities: for example in Multani, a affirming that Sikh boys could wear kirpans (a religious symbolic metal knife worn under clothing) to school; and in Amselem, permitting Jews to erect succah, a small ritual dwelling, on their balconies notwithstanding a rue of the luxury condo where they lived that prohibited balcony structures.

Queers have objected, unsuccessfully, that 'freedom of religion' should not be a licence to discriminate against queers just because they 'sincerely believe' that being queer is a sin. In Trinity Western, for example, queers lost an argument that the Christian College should be refused accreditation as a teacher's college because it required all students to sign a contract agreeing not to engage in sexual 'sins' including homosexuality.

So it seems obvious that Quebec's 'Charter of Values' would be thrown out because it contravenes the Charter of Rights. Because the Charter of Rights is part of the Constitution of the country any other law that conflicts with it can be declared null and void.

Right?

Not necessarily.

The Quebec government can throw in a 'notwithstanding' clause. Any government is permitted to enact a law which they know contradicts the Charter of Rights if they include a section that says the law is valid notwithstanding the Charter. If the 'notwithstanding' clause is included, the Quebec Charter of Values would be good for five years, after which it would have to be reenacted. Governments have to think twice about using the notwithstanding clause, because they know that every five years they will have to pay the political cost of enacting a Charter -violating law.

We queers must stand firmly with the religious minorities in Quebec, even though 'religious freedom' is often pitted against queer rights. Because what is at stake is our country's very soul. Unless we all recognize that conflicts among rights - religious freedom and queer rights, or any other conflict - must be settled by the courts, we will inevitably end up with the shameful spectacle of governments enacting legislation designed to hurt minorities just to get votes. And when that day comes, we will be among the minorities targeted for legislated bigotry.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is deeply flawed because it does not even pretend to address the worst inequalities among Canadians - the inequalities created and perpetuated by poverty. And the Charter is fragile: if ever it becomes politically acceptable to tack the 'notwithstanding' clause onto any piece of legislation which is currently in favour, all of our Charter rights will succomb.

But, as minorities of any kind - sexual, racial, religious, disabled, immigrant, women (though not a minority!) the Charter is all we've got.

Harper Launches Major First Nations Termination Planhttp://intercontinentalcry.org/harper-launches-major-first-nations-termination-plan-as-negotiating-tables-legitimize-canadas-colonialism/ Harper Launches Major First Nations Termination Plan: As Negotiating Tables Legitimize Canada's Colonialism By Russell Diabo Nov 9, 2012 On September 4th the Harper government clearly signaled its intention to: 1) Focus all its efforts to assimilate First Nations into the existing federal and provincial orders of government of Canada; 2) Terminate the constitutionally protected and internationally recognized Inherent, Aboriginal and Treaty rights of First Nations. Termination in this context means the ending of First Nations pre-existing sovereign status through federal coercion of First Nations into Land Claims and Self-Government Final Agreements that convert First Nations into municipalities, their reserves into fee simple lands and extinguishment of their Inherent, Aboriginal and Treaty Rights. To do this the Harper government announced three new policy measures: A "results based" approach to negotiating Modern Treaties and Self-Government Agreements. This is an assessment process of 93 negotiation tables across Canada to determine who will and who won't agree to terminate Inherent, Aboriginal and Treaty rights under the terms of Canada's Comprehensive Claims and Self-Government policies. For those tables who won't agree, negotiations will end as the federal government withdraws from the table and takes funding with them. First Nation regional and national political organizations will have their core funding cut and capped. For regional First Nation political organizations the core funding will be capped at $500,000 annually. For some regional organizations this will result in a funding cut of $1 million or more annually. This will restrict the ability of Chiefs and Executives of Provincial Territorial organization's to organize and/or advocate for First Nations rights and interests. First Nation Band and Tribal Council funding for advisory services will be eliminated over the next two years further crippling the ability of Chiefs and Councils and Tribal Council executives to analyze and assess the impacts of federal and provincial policies and legislation on Inherent, Aboriginal and Treaty rights. These three new policy measures are on top of the following unilateral federal legislation the Harper government is imposing over First Nations: - Bill C-27: First Nations Financial Transparency Act - Bill C-45: Jobs and Growth Act, 2012 [Omnibus Bill includes Indian Act amendments regarding voting on-reserve lands surrenders/designations] - Bill S-2: Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act - Bill S-6: First Nations Elections Act - Bill S-8: Safe Drinking Water for First Nations - Bill C-428: Indian Act Amendment and Replacement Act [Private Conservative MP's Bill, but supported by Harper government] Then there are the Senate Public Bills: - Bill S-207: An Act to amend the Interpretation Act (non derogation of aboriginal and treaty rights) - Bill S-212: First Nations Self-Government Recognition Bill The Harper government's Bills listed above are designed to undermine the collective rights of First Nations by focusing on individual rights. This is the "modern legislative framework" the Conservatives promised in 2006. The 2006 Conservative Platform promised to: Replace the Indian Act (and related legislation) with a modern legislative framework which provides for the devolution of full legal and democratic responsibility to aboriginal Canadians for their own affairs within the Constitution, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Of course "modern" in Conservative terms means assimilation of First Nations by termination of their collective rights and off-loading federal responsibilities onto the First Nations themselves and the provinces. One Bill that hasn't been introduced into Parliament yet, but is still expected, is the First Nations' Private Ownership Act (FNPOA). This private property concept for Indian Reserveswhich has been peddled by the likes of Tom Flanagan and tax proponent and former Kamloops Chief Manny Julesis also a core plank of the Harper government's 2006 electoral platform. The 2006 Conservative Aboriginal Platform promised that if elected a Harper government would: Support the development of individual property ownership on reserves, to encourage lending for private housing and businesses. The long-term goals set out in the Harper government's policy and legislative initiatives listed above are not new; they are at least as old as the Indian Act and were articulated in the federal 1969 White Paper on Indian Policy, which set out a plan to terminate Indian rights as the time. Previous Termination Plans: 1969 White Paper & Buffalo Jump of 1980's The objectives of the 1969 White Paper on Indian Policy were to: - Assimilate First Nations. - Remove legislative recognition. - Neutralize constitutional status. - Impose taxation. - Encourage provincial encroachment. - Eliminate Reserve lands & extinguish Aboriginal Title. - Economically underdevelop communities. - Dismantle Treaties. As First Nations galvanized across Canada to fight the Trudeau Liberal government's proposed 1969 termination policy the federal government was forced to consider a strategy on how to calm the Indian storm of protest. In a memo dated April 1, 1970, David Munro, an Assistant Deputy Minister of Indian Affairs on Indian Consultation and Negotiations, advised his political masters Jean Chrétien and Pierre Trudeau, as follows: . . . in our definition of objectives and goals, not only as they appear in formal documents, but also as stated or even implied in informal memoranda, draft planning papers, or causal conversation. We must stop talking about having the objective or goal of phasing out in five years. . . We can still believe with just as much strength and sincerity that the [White Paper] policies we propose are the right ones. . . The final [White Paper] proposal, which is for the elimination of special status in legislation, must be relegated far into the future. . . my conclusion is that we need not change the [White Paper] policy content, but we should put varying degrees of emphasis on its several components and we should try to discuss it in terms of its components rather than as a whole. . . we should adopt somewhat different tactics in relation to [the White Paper] policy, but that we should not depart from its essential content. (Emphasis added) In the early 1970's, the Trudeau Liberal government did back down publicly on implementing the 1969 White Paper on Indian Policy, but as we can see from Mr. Munro's advice the federal bureaucracy changed the timeline from five years to a long-term implementation of the 1969 White Paper objectives of assimilation/termination. In the mid-1980's the Mulroney Conservative government resurrected the elements of the 1969 White Paper on Indian Policy, through a Cabinet memo. In 1985, a secret federal Cabinet submission was leaked to the media by a DIAND employee. The Report was nicknamed the "Buffalo Jump of the 1980's" by another federal official. The nickname referred to the effect of the recommendations in the secret Cabinet document, which if adopted, would lead Status Indians to a cultural death -- hence the metaphor. The Buffalo Jump Report proposed a management approach for First Nations policy and programs, which had the following intent: - Limiting & eventually terminating the federal trust obligations; - Reducing federal expenditures for First Nations, under funding programs, and prohibiting deficit financing; - Shifting responsibility and costs for First Nations services to provinces and "advanced bands" through co-management, tri-partite, and community self-government agreements; - "Downsizing" of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (DIAND) through a devolution of program administration to "advanced bands" and transfer of programs to other federal departments; - Negotiating municipal community self-government agreements with First Nations which would result in the First Nation government giving up their Constitutional status as a sovereign government and becoming a municipality subject to provincial or territorial laws; - Extinguishing aboriginal title and rights in exchange for fee simple title under provincial or territorial law while giving the province or territory underlying title to First Nations lands. The Mulroney government's "Buffalo Jump" plan was temporarily derailed due the 1990 "Oka Crisis". Mulroney responded to the "Oka Crisis" with his "Four Pillars" of Native Policy: - Accelerating the settlement of land claims; - Improving the economic and social conditions on Reserves; - Strengthening the relationships between Aboriginal Peoples and governments; - Examining the concerns of Canada's Aboriginal Peoples in contemporary Canadian life. In 1991, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney also announced the establishment of a Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, which began its work later that year; the establishment of an Indian Claims Commission to review Specific Claims; the establishment of a BC Task Force on Claims, which would form the basis for the BC Treaty Commission Process. In 1992, Aboriginal organizations and the federal government agreed, as part of the 1992 Charlottetown Accord, on amendments to the Constitution Act, 1982 that would have included recognition of the inherent right of self-government for Aboriginal people. For the first time, Aboriginal organizations had been full participants in the talks; however, the Accord was rejected in a national referendum. With the failure of Canadian constitutional reform in 1992, for the last twenty years, the federal governmentwhether Liberal or Conservativehas continued to develop policies and legislation based upon the White Paper/Buffalo Jump objectives and many First Nations have regrettably agreed to compromise their constitutional/international rights by negotiating under Canada's termination policies. Canada's Termination Policies Legitimized by Negotiation Tables It has been thirty years since Aboriginal and Treaty rights have been "recognized and affirmed" in section 35 of Canada's constitution. Why hasn't the constitutional protection for First Nations' Inherent, Aboriginal and Treaty rights been implemented on the ground? One answer to this question is, following the failure of the First Ministers' Conferences on Aboriginal Matters in the 1980's, many First Nations agreed to compromise their section 35 Inherent, Aboriginal and Treaty rights by entering into or negotiating Modern Treaties and/or Self-government Agreements under Canada's unilateral negotiation terms. These Modern Treaties and Self-Government Agreements not only contribute to emptying out section 35 of Canada's constitution of any significant legal, political or economic meaning. Final settlement agreements are then used as precedents against other First Nations' who are negotiating. Moreover, Canada's Land Claims and Self-Government policies are far below the international standards set out in the Articles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Canada publicly endorsed the UNDRIP in November 2010, but obviously Canada's interpretation of the UNDRIP is different than that of most First Nations, considering their unilateral legislation and policy approach. Canada's voted against UNDRIP on Sept. 13, 2007, stating that the UNDRIP was inconsistent with Canada's domestic policies, especially the Articles dealing with Indigenous Peoples' Self-Determination, Land Rights and Free, Prior Informed Consent. Canada's position on UNDRIP now is that they can interpret it as they please, although the principles in UNDRIP form part of international not domestic law. The federal strategy is to maintain the Indian Act (with amendments) as the main federal law to control and manage First Nations. The only way out of the Indian Act for First Nations is to negotiate an agreement under Canada's one-sided Land Claims and/or Self-Government policies. These Land Claims/Self-Government Agreements all require the termination of Indigenous rights for some land, cash and delegated jurisdiction under the existing federal and provincial orders of government. Canada has deemed that it will not recognize the pre-existing sovereignty of First Nations or allow for a distinct First Nations order of government based upon section 35 of Canada's constitution. Through blackmail, bribery or force, Canada is using the poverty of First Nations to obtain concessions from First Nations who want out of the Indian Act by way of Land Claims/Self- Government Agreements. All of these Agreements conform to Canada's interpretation of section 35 of Canada's constitution, which is to legally, politically and economically convert First Nations into what are essentially ethnic municipalities. The first groups in Canada who have agreed to compromise their section 35 Inherent and Aboriginal rights through Modern Treaties have created an organization called the Land Claims Agreement Coalition. The Coalition Members are: Council of Yukon First Nations (representing 9 land claim organizations in the Yukon) Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee) Gwich'in Tribal Council Inuvialuit Regional Corporation Kwanlin Dun First Nation Maa-nulth First Nations Makivik Corporation Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach Nisga'a Nation Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. Nunatsiavut Government Sahtu Secretariat Inc. Tlicho Government Tsawwassen First Nation Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation The Land Claims Agreement Coalition Members came together because the federal government wasn't properly implementing any of their Modern Treaties. So the Coalition essentially became a lobby group to collectively pressure the federal government to respect their Modern Treaties. According to Members of the Coalition Modern Treaty implementation problems persist today. The fact that Canada has already broken the Modern Treaties shouldn't inspire confidence for those First Nations who are already lined up at Canada's Comprehensive Claims and Self-Government negotiation tables. According to the federal Department of Aboriginal Affairs there are 93 Modern Treaty and/or Self-Government negotiation tables across Canada [http://www.aadncaandc.gc.ca/eng/1346782327802/1346782485058]. Those First Nations who are negotiating at these 93 tables are being used by the federal government (and the provinces/Territories) to legitimize its Comprehensive Claims and Self-Government policies, which are based upon extinguishment of Aboriginal Title and termination of Inherent, Aboriginal and Treaty rights. The First Nations who have been refusing to negotiate and are resisting the federal Comprehensive Claims and Self-Government negotiating policies are routinely ignored by the federal government and kept under control and managed through the Indian Act (with amendments). Attempts by non-negotiating First Nations to reform the federal Comprehensive Claims and Self-Government policies aren't taken seriously by the federal government because there are so many First Nations who have already compromised their Inherent, Aboriginal and Treaty rights by agreeing to negotiate under the terms and funding conditions of these Comprehensive Claims and Self-Government policies. For example, following the 1997 Supreme Court of Canada Delgamuukw decision, which recognized that Aboriginal Title exists in Canada, the Assembly of First Nations tried to reform the Comprehensive Claims policy to be consistent with